or not, and decided to put it in for dramatic effect (and because there
have been proposed some pretty stupid ideas on account on
'experimentation' in the past) figuring that you wouldn't be offended. I
was in error, and I apologize for the offence.
The issue here is a technical one. Computers rely on standards to speak
with each other. These must follow the rules set down in the technical
specifications or the system breaks down. So when the spec says 'you must
include a <link> element which points to the HTML page for your channel',
you better fucking do that. If you don't like the standard, get a new
version adopted, use another standard, but don't send faulty data down the
line.
- Andreas
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:10:44 +0200, duncan speakman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You can lie putting in http://www.example.com/ or soemthing else.
>
> it's not about being a lie, it's about why we assume videos need some
> kind of 'site' or homepage
>
>> But by
>> doing so you devaluate RSS as a whole. If more people did that the
>> channel
>> level <link> would become useless for everyone because you can't trust
>> its
>> contents
>
> well.. if it's already possible then how can we trust anything that is
> there already? i really think saying that me trying to make a feed
> without a hompage will devaluate RSS as a whole is somewhat
> overestimating my influence over the web!
>
>> (making your a dumbass).
> thank you andreas, i'm glad we can ask questions without being slated.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
<URL:http://www.solitude.dk/>
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
